DC Metro area
1
Muslim
Have zero doubt god exists
Have a few issues with my religion, as well as others
But that doesnt affect my belief in god
Wish people would have a clearer picture of my religion, that is not based on how many Muslims act, because there are some dumbass Muslims
But that should not stop people from seeing the good things about it also
Just like the 1m doesn't put me off the other nicer BMWs

I don't ever want to tell anyone what they are or are not so I hope this is not taken the wrong way. That being said it sounds like you would consider yourself to be a Deist as opposed to a Theist.

The difference is this: A theist believes in an omnipotent god or gods that actively watch and care about what we do. They may interfere with this world and have plans for us after.
A deist on the other hand believes that god was/is similar to a watchmaker or scientist. They created all this or played a massive role in it but then went on their merry way to new things. They don't care about what we do or think nor do they have special plans for us, we are simply something they created either intentionally or unintentionally.

It is strongly believed that many of the founders of this country were deists: Jefferson, Franklin and Washington among them. There is much supporting evidence for this. Countless other historic figures fall into this category, Paine being one of my favorites.

Many Jewish people now, are Diest in ideals. Its not something you could gather from any other way than one on one conversation. Scotch believes what most Jewish people believe that are not heavy practicers, though in a sense it runs against traditional Judaism if you looked at it in black and white.

I dont like the scale for me so im not going to try to come up with an answer. I will tell you this however, Ive studied Philosophy of Religion under one of the best published teachers of the subject, i have a BBA and am now a pre-med student. The reason im mentioning this is to let you know that im a student and thus have a students view of the world.

The conclusion ive come to is this: From a deist prospective, there is no way to disprove it. One could easily say that all the reasons Tyson said there is no God, could be explained through a being that simply put things into motion at one point for whatever reason or none at all (maybe that it was put into motion at all is "God"?).

The biggest part for me is this. Simply put, perception. For me, having any kind of perception is a divine experience (i realize experience is also another word for perception). We could be robots with no view on life or anything else for that matter, just moving because we have been wound up to move, in a way we are and in a way we aren't. For me, all the ways that we aren't signify a "supreme being" if thats the way you wish to put it. I guess this means that we could have a "Childhoods End" (by Arther C Clark, one of the best books ive read) sort of Mind with a large "M" or maybe something else, to me, that qualifies as divinity and couldn't be anything else.

DC Metro area
1
MuslimHave zero doubt god exists
Have a few issues with my religion, as well as others
But that doesnt affect my belief in god
Wish people would have a clearer picture of my religion, that is not based on how many Muslims act, because there are some dumbass Muslims
But that should not stop people from seeing the good things about it also
Just like the 1m doesn't put me off the other nicer BMWs

Same way you believe in atoms, black holes, big bang theory etc
You've never seen them
But you see their effects
I often see things around me that could only mean that there is a higher power
Which region is right is another matter
They all have their pluses, and they all have their bad aspects
Including mine
But that doesn't in any way shake my belief in the big guy up top

This is absolutely not a good read, every time I see it I want to punch myself in the face for being made more stupid. The 'student' makes about as good an argument for solipsism as he does for religion. Clearly the person who made this understands how to use a dictionary but not whatever logical faculties he may possess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sara504

I read this once... Its a good read.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

LOL

This however is well thought out, should be somewhat obvious where I am on the scale if you watch it.

Same way you believe in atoms, black holes, big bang theory etc
You've never seen them
But you see their effectsI often see things around me that could only mean that there is a higher power
Which region is right is another matter
They all have their pluses, and they all have their bad aspects
Including mine
But that doesn't in any way shake my belief in the big guy up top

Such as? I'm genuinely curious because in my short time on earth I've yet to experience anything supernatural. Anyone else who is 100% certain god exists can chime in too with their experiences.

Same way you believe in atoms, black holes, big bang theory etc
You've never seen them
But you see their effects
I often see things around me that could only mean that there is a higher power

I'd also like to hear about your evidence too. But I need to clarify your mis-assertions about faith and science. Of course we've seen atoms; just because you haven't, doesn't mean it's a matter of faith.

By definition, science is supported by theory and evidence, whereas faith is simply not.

This is absolutely not a good read, every time I see it I want to punch myself in the face for being made more stupid. The 'student' makes about as good an argument for solipsism as he does for religion. Clearly the person who made this understands how to use a dictionary but not whatever logical faculties he may possess.

Well, it's interesting to see I'm not the only one who felt that way after reading that story.
I'm not here to try and make that poster feel bad for their beliefs, but to me, the story had huge gaping holes of logic in it.

After reading it, instead of leading me closer to a belief in God, (which is presumably the effect it had on the OP), it had the opposite effect; especially the stuff about the professor's brain. "Is there anyone in the class who has seen or touched the professors brain ? No, then you must take it on faith that he has one". Then trying to equate that to faith about religion. That is one of the most, um, 'interesting" attempts at establishing a logical correlation I have ever heard.

Ever heard of a CAT scan, or MRI ? You can easily prove with evidence, without a shadow of a doubt, that the professor does indeed have a brain. Sure, if you dont have such a machine, then you only observe the effects that suggest the brain is there (ie: the prof can breathe and eat and speak, etc.) That could be a matter of faith similar to believing on God, but it is very temporary. Once he dies, you can cut him open, and then hold his brain in your hand for proof. Any faith required is very short term. This is not at all similar (IMHO) to something where you still cannot produce concrete evidence even after thousands of years, using the latest technology available, and yet people still choose to very strongly believe in it.

I guess this is the perfect example of how everyone has a different threshold of how open they are to interpretation, and their comfort level in how tightly coupled the relationship of cause and effect has to be for them to embrace something.

Personally, I am a very logical, analytical thinker. When I read the whole "who has touched the profs brain" argument, so many big red flags pop up in my head that my whole thought process came to a screeching halt, as if the whole thing went so far off the rails of reason that there was no point in continuing to read.

For some others, I guess that does not happen, and stories such as that actually reinforce their beliefs, instead of challenging it further, which was the effect it had on me. Fascinating how different people can have such different take-aways from the same source material. I guess that's what makes the world interesting.

Well, it's interesting to see I'm not the only one who felt that way after reading that story.
I'm not here to try and make that poster feel bad for their beliefs, but to me, the story had huge gaping holes of logic in it.

After reading it, instead of leading me closer to a belief in God, (which is presumably the effect it had on the OP), it had the opposite effect; especially the stuff about the professor's brain. "Is there anyone in the class who has seen or touched the professors brain ? No, then you must take it on faith that he has one". Then trying to equate that to faith about religion. That is one of the most, um, 'interesting" attempts at establishing a logical correlation I have ever heard.

Ever heard of a CAT scan, or MRI ? You can easily prove with evidence, without a shadow of a doubt, that the professor does indeed have a brain. Sure, if you dont have such a machine, then you only observe the effects that suggest the brain is there (ie: the prof can breathe and eat and speak, etc.) That could be a matter of faith similar to believing on God, but it is very temporary. Once he dies, you can cut him open, and then hold his brain in your hand for proof. Any faith required is very short term. This is not at all similar (IMHO) to something where you still cannot produce concrete evidence even after thousands of years, using the latest technology available, and yet people still choose to very strongly believe in it.

I guess this is the perfect example of how everyone has a different threshold of how open they are to interpretation, and their comfort level in how tightly coupled the relationship of cause and effect has to be for them to embrace something.

Personally, I am a very logical, analytical thinker. When I read the whole "who has touched the profs brain" argument, so many big red flags pop up in my head that my whole thought process came to a screeching halt, as if the whole thing went so far off the rails of reason that there was no point in continuing to read.

For some others, I guess that does not happen, and stories such as that actually reinforce their beliefs, instead of challenging it further, which was the effect it had on me. Fascinating how different people can have such different take-aways from the same source material. I guess that's what makes the world interesting.

I would have to agree also, although I don't want to offend I do believe it is an extraordinarily weak argument. To be fair (and I mean no disrespect by this) I have NEVER seen a logical or strong argument for a higher being existing.

I still am glad people from all sides are choosing to post and even happier that we are challenging others ideas. I think that religion is something that should be more openly questioned and talked about, after all that is the only way to learn more.

That being said, I have yet to see any rational and well articulated argument for belief posted here. Certainly you can have "faith" but let us understand that it is not a credible rebuttal for evidence. By evidence I mean something that is both testable and repeatable, if anyone has an example of this please feel free to share and we can put it to the test, if not then one should ask themselves what the underlying reasons for their position truly are. Once again, not meant to offend only meant to stimulate thought and conversation.

I still am glad people from all sides are choosing to post and even happier that we are challenging others ideas. I think that religion is something that should be more openly questioned and talked about, after all that is the only way to learn more.

I agree, I think there are some interesting comments here. I dont wish to offend either, if you believe X, and that makes you happy, then good for you, I have no illusions that a post on a website will change anyone's belief system. For me, it's very interesting journey to try and see how people got to the point where they believe X.

If the same data is available to you that I could find, and assuming you dont have some other special ability that I dont possess, then I find it really, really fascinating that people can derive a conclusion of X from that info, when try as I might, I keep finding myself at the same end point where X is (to me, anyways) one of the least plausible of all conclusions from that same set of data.

Any questions I ask, or logical challenges I pose, are not meant to offend, but rather to help me understand how it is possible to get to that endpoint of X despite the presence of these logical barriers that stop me... you know, like, what am I missing? How come I cant get past the hurdles that others apparently clear with ease?

This is most confounding to me when I think of people who are very analytical in most other areas of life. I worked with a guy who would approach most business propositions with the most critical eye, and to get him to buy into your plan required that you did all your homework, and it had to withstand the most rigorous logical attack you could imagine. He wanted studies, and PROOF before he'd pull the trigger to spend $. And yet, he was quite religious. His faith meant that he unconditionally accepted some pretty implausible things with no evidence. At work, he would tear a strip off you if you dared to propose even the most reasonable-sounding, moderate idea without tons of defensible, irrefutable justification.

If I live to be 100 I dont think I'll ever understand how those two vastly different "acceptance thresholds" peacefully co-existed in his head.

Haha that is kind of why I started this poll, it seemed to many on here that there were a surprising amount of non-believers and I wanted to garner some data to put that to the test. It is also just a great way to open communication and learn something.

While you and I may be at separate ends of the belief spectrum (I am a 6) one thing we can likely agree on is that your username is awesome. I just sold my AP1 S2000 recently. While I love my BMW few feelings are able to rival taking a well built S2K around a tight corner..... sigh

Haha that is kind of why I started this poll, it seemed to many on here that there were a surprising amount of non-believers and I wanted to garner some data to put that to the test. It is also just a great way to open communication and learn something.

While you and I may be at separate ends of the belief spectrum (I am a 6) one thing we can likely agree on is that your username is awesome. I just sold my AP1 S2000 recently. While I love my BMW few feelings are able to rival taking a well built S2K around a tight corner..... sigh

Had an ap1 and ap2. The most fun I have ever had driving. May snatch up another one someday.

"Science" and popularly accepted fact once proved that the earth was flat, it also proved that the earth revolved around the sun. I wouldn't place any "faith" in what we have currently decided we "know".

For the logical, science and direct observation folks--try answering any of the most profound "why" questions. You'll soon run out of our very sparse facts and miniscule understanding of the universe. Only leaves one way to put it all in a perspective understandable by humans--faith.

Ever been in the delivery room for the birth of your very own child? Of course there is a "God".